Legal Opinions

The Collector of Customs of New South Wales performs the duties of Registrar of Shipping under the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. He has since 1 January 1901 ceased to pay his collections as Registrar into the State Treasury and contends that they are appropriately those of the Commonwealth and not of the State.

In this he appears to me to be right. Where, as at Sydney, there is a Collector of Customs he is the only person authorised to render the services and collect the fees for rendering them under the Merchant Shipping A ct 1894,5 7 & 5 8 Vic. c. 60, section 4.

The Empire as a sovereign independent state possesses full contracting powers which are exercised by the Imperial Government alone. The Commonwealth has no treaty powers of any kind under its Constitution and being a dependency can acquire none save those with which it may be specially endowed from time to time.

Wharfage rates

The rates collected under the Melbourne Harbor Trust Act, sections 110-19117, Marine Act 1890, sections 20-24, clearly belong to the State of Victoria. They are not taxes, or burdens on commerce, but charges for services rendered. See Quick & Garran, pp. 535-6, 853, and the cases there cited. This of course is subject to the qualification that if the rates were imposed or collected discriminatingly, or without any regard to the value of the service, or if they were excessive they might be challenged as unconstitutional.

1. As to the implied operation of the Act of Cession upon the territorial rights of New South Wales or, in other words, can the contention be constitutionally supported that 'just terms' is an expression limited to private property, and does not include State rights the loss of which may entail loss of revenue etc.?
2. Are roads and public highways 'Crown lands' the soil of which by being vested in the Crown, would, on transfer carry any improvements, buildings etc. thereon to the transferee without compensation?

There is no provision in the South Australian Customs Acts or Regulations for the licensing of carriers (except in the case of lighters; see Act No. 19 of 1864⁽¹⁾, section 17). From information supplied by the Department, it appears that no licence is in fact issued, but that a general bond is taken, with approved security, from carriers, before they are allowed to cart goods in bond. In other words, the Department, in respect of the handling of goods in bond, takes security from the agent as well as from the principal.

This decree purports to be made under the authority of a law of 30 July 1900, authorising the President of the French Republic to assure, by a decree, the protection of French citizens in certain islands and territories of the Pacific Ocean.

No; a Bill appropriating revenue for the ordinary annual services, if it includes items beyond that purpose, does not cease to be a 'proposed law which appropriates revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government', but such a Bill is out of order. Section 54 is equivalent to a standing order of both Houses, imposed by the authority of the Constitution.

The proposal apparently is to ask the Queensland Government to proclaim a reserve under section 95 of the Queensland Crown Lands Act of 1884, which empowers the Governor in Council 'to grant in trust or by Proclamation reserve from sale or lease, either temporarily or permanently, any Crown lands which, in his opinion, are or may be required' for various public purposes, and amongst others 'for any other purpose of public defence, safety, utility, convenience, or enjoyment, or for otherwise facilitating the improvement and settlement of the colony, or for any special purpose which may be ap

The questions are:

1. Whether an excise duty may differentiate between sugar grown by black labour and sugar grown by white labour?
2. Whether a bounty may be given on the production of white-grown sugar only?

Duties are imposts or taxes, for the purpose of raising revenue for the public treasury-whether with or without any further intention. Duties are levied upon goods either-

1. Is the collection of duties, upon a resolution of the House on the day of the introduction of the tariff, 'the imposition of uniform duties of customs' within the meaning of sections 88, 89, 90, 92, 93, 94 and 95?

   The real question is whether imposition within the meaning of these sections dates from the imposition by the authority of law, or from the prior collection of duties, without legal authority, but according to a recognised usage, for the protection of the revenue. For answer to this question we must look-